Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!sun!hoptoad!laura
From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: New newsgroup proceedures, voting..
Message-ID: <602@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Sun, 9-Mar-86 19:02:15 EST
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.602
Posted: Sun Mar  9 19:02:15 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Mar-86 06:38:43 EST
References: <5075@alice.uUCp> <3326@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 25

In article <3326@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>
>o No new group is created unless the net can agree on another group to 
>	get rid of with a rmgroup. I think that there are MORE than enough
>	groups on the net, but most of them are or little to no value.
>	Among other things, this will guarantee that the people wanting
>	the new group are serious (do we need net.foobar MORE than we need
>	net.wobegon?) and will help clean up the naming space and make it
>	more efficient and useful.

What is wrong with lots and lots of newsgroups?  Lots  and lots of articles,
yes, but what is so wrong with lots and lots of newsgroups?  You open
the door here for some really nasty things to happen.  I am sure
that I could find a lot of people who think that net.religion should
be removed because it has no value.  But the thing to do is to let them
not read it, and, if they are worried about costs, not recieve it.  The
thing *not* to do is to give them the power and authority to get rid of
net.religion for *everybody* -- even those who want it and are willing
to pay for it.


-- 
Laura Creighton		
ihnp4!hoptoad!laura  utzoo!hoptoad!laura  sun!hoptoad!laura
toad@lll-crg.arpa